A League of Nations.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16257, 6 July 1918, Page 8

A League of Nations.

During the past week or two there has appeared further evidence of the growth of tho idea that a League of Nations should bo established us soon as the war is concluded, or even that such a League should bo embodiod in the terms of settlement. The Archbi&hoo Canterbury has been advised

that the Charch in America is in favour of the idea, and Lord* Curzon, on behalf of tho Government, acceptod a recommendation by the House of Lords that the Goveinment should study the conditions required for the establishment of a League. On his own behalf he declared that the idea had come to stay. Mr Lloyd George himself, of course, has supported the proposal. We may now take it that the British and American Governments, and an overwhelming majority in both countries, whether amongst the statesmen or amongst the people, are keenly desirous of seeing some international arrangement that will guarantees the peace of the world. Not a few people have declared that this is no time to talk of peace or leagues of peace, and amongst these people are some who are roally not unfriendly to the ideal of a world in which war will be next to impossible. There is no danger, however, that the discussion of tho League idea will do any harm or tend to weaken the arms of the Allies, for no responsible person has suggested that such a League can be a satisfactory substitute for victory. Nobody has been more emphatic on this point than Mr Taft, to whom more than to anyone tho growth of the idea is due. On May 16th last, at the conference of tho League to Enforce Peace, of which he is president, Sir Taft said: —"Wo "should set our faces stern and un- " bending toward one end—war. Let "us have peace, but let us have war " that wo may have peace. To sound " the trumpet, stern unplacable war "to the end, this Conference was "called. The difficulties in the way of achieving the ideal of a world united against war are very groat, but with tho best minds in the world working at the problem the prospects of some satisfactory solution being found can be considered promising. The principal danger to bo guarded against, is the risk that some very powerful and unscrupulous nation may decide that its strength is great enough, to make it safe to challenge the whole world —to do, on a larger scale, what Germany is now doing. But it is easy to overestimate that risk. If Germany had known that she would find herself at war with all the Powers now engaged in the conflict, it is hardly doubtful that she would have kept the peace, and allowed Austria to submit her case against Serbia to arbitration. If it be replied that this war has opened Germany's eyes to the possibility of a successful war against tho whole world, then one can point out that Germany is not actually fighting the whole world. She has had the enormous asset of the neutrality of the smaller surrounding States. If Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Spain, and Switzerland had entered the war against the disturber of the peace, Germany would have been defeated by now. The value of neutrals to a lawless Power engaged in w&r has been exemplified with perfect clearness in this struggle. Peace can lie ensured in future only by abolishing neutrality. This point was dealt with by Lord Parker in his speech on Lord Patmoor'B motion on March 19th last. "The " neutrality of the nations not in the " war," he said, "was maintained otily "by fear. If it could be made clear " that in the future there would bo no "neutrals, the danger of -frar would "be minimised, because its risks " would be increased. The thorough "line of development lay not in consulting the selfish interests of ncu,Ttrals, but in abolishing neutrality." Lord Parker did not expect that in future no Belf-respecting nation would remain neutral. He contemplated the application of either economic or nv

tary pressure against any would-be neutral, and the present war has made it clear that the neutrals have remained so very largely because of the consideration shown to them. The immunity of neutrals from the pains of war, and their freedom to profit from the leniency of one belligerent by trading with the other, received a* heavy blow ill the famous judgment in the "Leonora" case in April last. If it be agreed that war, from whatever cause, is a danger to civilisation, and that international disputes ought to be settled on principles of right and justice, then no nation could remain neutral without offending the conscience of the world. So far from regarding the discussion of a League of Peace as idle talk about an impossible ideal, we believe that the prospect of a better age to which responsible statesmen in increasing numbers are looking forward, will do much to sustain the hearts of the Allies in their task of so defeating our barbarous enemy that the labours and sacrifices of the past four years shall not have been in vain.